Sep 8, 2023 By Nick Jacobs 4 min read

Deeply coded in our DNA are interesting survival mechanisms that have evolved over thousands of years. In an article by Elizabeth Kolbert featured in the magazine The New Yorker, she describes “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” In this article, she explains why humans are misled by false information.

She helps us begin to understand that human reasoning didn’t evolve from solving abstract logical problems, but to navigate social interactions with collaborative groups. According to Kolbert, we knowingly embrace false information because we feel a physical and intellectual high from winning an argument no matter what the facts are, but this goes much deeper than just one dopamine rush.

In the article, which was summarized from a book of the same title, she explained why seemingly intelligent, reasonable people are often completely irrational. One reason for this is described in publications by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, two European researchers who determined, “Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us conclude unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.”

That statement from Mercier and Sperber refers to the fact that “habits of the mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an intellectual point of view are shrewd when examined from a social interaction perspective.”

One of the greatest examples of this type of thinking has become a very highly recognized phenomenon called “confirmation bias.” That term refers to the fact that people have a highly developed tendency to believe and hold onto information that continues to support their current beliefs. Mercier and Sperber point out, “Humans aren’t randomly credulous” or easily deceived. It’s easy for us to identify and point out the flaws in other human’s arguments. Our weakness is blindness toward our personal viewpoints. They call this “Myside bias.”

Here’s where evolution comes into play. When we lived in small groups of hunter-gatherers, our greatest concern was, according to the two academicians, social standing. People didn’t want to risk their lives either hunting or gathering while their cavemates sat around. Consequently, clear reasoning wasn’t the key to survival, but winning arguments was, no matter what the facts were. Now with all the social media opportunities to spread false information, to reinforce lies, and to twist our reasoning, evolution hasn’t allowed us to catch up with this new world order.

Two other professors, Steven Slotman and Philip Fernback of Brown University and the University of Colorado, respectively, have explained that from their research, “People believe they know more than they actually do.” The main area where this belief system gets us into trouble is politics. “It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about.”

The most telling quote from their research is this: “As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.” If one person without a comprehensive understanding of a subject takes a stand against it and then convinces another person to do the same, by the time the third person agrees, there is now a movement without full knowledge of the facts. That pretty well explains the last seven or so years of politics in our country. It’s this type of networking that makes community knowledge dangerous.

Their conclusion is simple but probably not achievable: “If we … spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and moderate our views.”

“This,” they write, “might be the only form of thinking . . . that will change people’s attitudes.”

It may feel good to stick to your false beliefs, but it’s not helping our country.

Nick Jacobs is a Windber resident.